----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Dayton Subject: Re[4]: call for enablers! BRUCE DAYTON NEEDS A 67II!
> Aaron, > > Great! Look forward to viewing them. On a different vein, how does > the 67 fare for shooting portraits? Groups I would assume the 75mm, > individuals maybe the 165? I know, I'm not Aaron. I love the 6x7 as a portrait camera. While I bought it primarily for landscapes, I quickly found that the ergonomics of the camera lend itself to being used handheld at eye level. For me, this is the preferred camera placement for portraits, as it puts the viewers perspective at a reasonable height. This has always been my gripe with waist level finders. The camera is too low to give a comfortable perspective to the viewer. This is also why I laugh at the big move photographers who do the knee drop to shoot wedding processions. All of a sudden, the camera is looking up at the subject. Bad camera placement. The traditional box shaped MF SLR cameras (Hassy, Bronica, Mamiya, etc) all share what for me is a basic ergonomic flaw: they are designed to be used as a waist level, so they are not comfortable to use with an eye level finder. Tripod mounting helps, but I like to shoot studio portraits hand held. The 6x7 is great for this sort of fun. I have the "Other Bow-Wow Takumar"� 75mm f/4.5 lens. It is a good group portrait lens, but it is just not really a great lens. If you can back up far enough, the 90mm is good. For individual portraits, the 165 or 200 are both nice lenses. The old 200 is not a stellar lens, but it is more than adequate, considering the degree of enlargement the 2 1/4 x2 3/4 negative usually gets. Remember, a 20 x 24 is the same amount of enlargement in this format as 8x10 is in 35mm. Bruce, your pictures really do deserve a Pentax 6x7. I may make that into a sig file. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
